Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: t2 who wrote (19074)	3/28/1999 2:37:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Respond to of 74651

That's somewhat, but not totally. Government offers are always MORE generous than what they ask for when they win at a trial, not less. The reason for this is that they are spared the expense of a trial. As the trial continues and gets closer to a verdict, the government offers will become less and less kind to Microsoft. The more Microsoft forces the trial to continue, the worse it will be for them if they lose. And for those of you who still believe that Microsoft is going to win this case--- let me just point out that you can't win a civil case without presenting a defense (criminal cases are a different story), and, guess what sportsfans--- Microsoft didn't present a defense! That is, most or all of their testimony is going to be discarded as not credible. That just leaves the prosecution testimony which is pretty damning. The appeals court won't do anything about that, either, since Jackson has the right to determine who was telling the truth and who was lying in court. Tell us, oh Microsoft believers, who was telling the truth in court-- Bill Gates or Jim Barksdale? Paul Maritz or Steve McGready? Jim Allchin or Ed Felten? Finally, how much will Microsoft suffer if they have to license and/or reveal the Win32 source code? Shoulda settled.

To: t2 who wrote (19074)	3/28/1999 3:14:00 PM
From: RTev	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Microsoft is not going to win this battle. Nor are they likely to win the war unless they agree some some kind of significant structural change. That's the important point: structural change. If they agree to that, then they (and we as shareholders) will win big. If, on the other hand, they continue the war they'll still win eventually either through legal means or by market changes but only at a great cost to everyone. I know the message from Friday thanking the DOJ for its suit was tongue-in-cheek, but I believe it came closer than most to getting to the heart of the matter -- that this suit can be very good for Microsoft in the long run. No matter what happens, the suit will be good because it is forcing the company to rethink its approach to the market. That's something Microsoft often does on its own, as the current reorganization plan shows, but it's been very difficult for MS to give up the monopoly game that was so successful in the 90s. This suit pressures them to redefine that approach. They have a choice. They could continue to fight the antitrust battle, as IBM did in the 70s and 80s, continuing to operate as a monopoly and continuing to make business decisions based partly on legal considerations, or they could free themselves from all that and focus on the 2k markets. It looks like Microsoft is following the IBM strategy of Boies in his prior life. That disappoints me, but not enough that I'd sell their stock because I think the strategy will be very effective for at least another few years. I'd much rather see them accept a structural change that gets them out of the monopoly business at its peak and lets them focus on riding the next wave into the 2K's.